Flux Health Forum

Thoughts on PEMF Manufacturers

PEMF Basics
#52

There are many, and they come and go, some quickly, some linger in the market for years, so I will not make specific comparisons using brand names, but rather I will offer general guidelines that can be applied to these devices as they come and go, and as they morph into other guises in an attempt to appear "new’ or cutting edge.

“High-Power PEMF” is basically any PEMF system that must be plugged into a wall outlet to line voltage (~ 115 VAC) to operate. These systems tend to be physically large and typically cost from $5,000 to $50,000. They use a lot of voltage (115 Volts or more) and electrical power (typically > 100 Watts).

ICES-PEMF is powered at 5 Volts or less, and generally emits half a Watt, but usually much less. So, compared to “High-Power PEMF” systems, ICES-PEMF is much gentler and has benefits that are similar or better, but only using about 1/200th the power.

Again, I am not saying that “high-power PEMF” systems do not confer clinical benefits. I am saying that they are vastly over-priced and highly inefficient (typically 99.8% inefficient), and therefore radiate a lot of electromagnetic energy (much of it in the “dirty” RFI spectrum) that has no detectable biological benefit and might actually be dangerous. And the marketers of these systems tend to make a lot of fraudulent claims. They will literally claim anything in order to win a sale.

5 Likes
Comparing to other machines
#53

Dr Pawluk mentions intensity as being an important factor for reaching deeper into the body. Yet from what I understand some of the less powerful matts are using a carrier wave to permeate deeper then the magnetic wave form can based on gauss on its own. Have you heard of this as a delivery system for pemf and can you comment on it?

1 Like
#54

Well, it gets pretty complicated mathematically because there is some calculus involved, but generally the steady, unchanging component of the magnetism does not seem to have reliable biological effects (some people disagree, but they have failed to produce a convincing argument or data)

It is the changing part of the magnetic field that matters when it comes to eliciting biological responses. And what really matters is how fast it changes (dB/dt).

But the intensity of the magnetic field is the mathematical product of how fast it is changing, and how long it is changing:

I = dB/dt * t

This is the same as saying that the distance a car travels depends on its speed and how long it drives:

distance = rate multiplied by time (d = r * t)

Keeping in mind that magnetic fields drop off very quickly (~ 1/r^3)

To get the rate of change you need (dB/dt) for a biological effect, you need to quickly achieve a very high magnetic field intensity. As you get farther from the magnetic coils, this gets harder and harder to do.

Therefore, to produce a magnetic pulse with sufficient rate of change (dB/dt) to induce a biological effect, for deeper tissues (farther away from the coils) it is necessary to have very high peak magnetic intensity.

So, it is not that you need high magnetic intensity per se, rather you need to achieve sufficient magnetic field change rate for sufficient time, and the mathematical byproduct of that is the need for a high peak magnetic intensity to reach larger distances from the magnetic coils.

But the use of “carrier waves” to get magnetic fields to penetrate to deeper tissues makes the assumption that it is the peak magnetic field that matters, which is in my opinion incorrect. It is my scientific opinion that this technique is used (or it is just claimed to be used, after all, how would you really know for sure) as a way to attempt to give technical credibility to a PEMF system that has demonstrated that it actually does not work well for deep tissues.

I have done some experiments with this, and with fixed magnets (very powerful ones), and in no case did I see any enhancement of effects by adding either steady or carrier magnetic waves.

I have also never seen any reliable scientific report of the use of carrier waves to enhance the effectiveness of PEMF in any experimental system.

So, I could be wrong, but I think the use (or the claim) of carrier waves is just wishful thinking or deceptive marketing on the part of some PEMF manufacturers.

3 Likes
#55

Thank you for the reply. I found it interesting since I had seen carrier waves referred to on a couple PEMF devices as well as Rife and Nano VI device. Did not really understand how they could be using a carrier wave to implement effect. Nano VI seems to be using light frequency to effect I am guessing water into the “4th Stage” to be inhaled, but they mention a carrier wave in the range that is an ol CB bandwidth. It is interesting to hear the different marketing of products and theories.

Thank you for your input and advice.

#56

Hello! I bought a ICES M1 and these days I’m reading a book called “Power Tools for Health” to understand more about the underlying mechanism and how PEMF therapy works. Reading the book it seems two things are very important: a trapezoidal wave and dB/dT. I’d like to know if the ICES M1 has the trapezoidal wave and what is the dB/dT and how it compares with other manufacturers! Thanks a lot!

#57

It is really the core ICES-PEMF technology that forms the basis for that understanding described in the book and in many recent PEMF products. So, it is the book that reflects recent PEMF research and the technology in ICES-PEMF: the technology is built-in to our technology, and the book describes it.

The book was written by William Pawluk MD. Bill is a friend and colleague of mine, and he is the recognized global clinical expert on the medical uses of PEMF. But he is not a scientist. For about the past 12 years I have been sharing the results of my research with Bill. He had been mired in the confusing swamp of disinformation and false marketing claims about how PEMF works. There had also been some good scientific evidence in support of the Faraday Induction mechanism of PEMF (the theory that emphasizes dB/dt and trapezoidal waveforms) since 1968, but it had been lost in the noise surrounding PEMF technologies. Since then the electro-magnetic induction-based theory of PEMF was very strongly supported by my research for NASA-JSC and DARPA in the mid 1990’s and early 2000’s.

https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/5
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/27

Briefly, I think it is fair to say that Bill Pawluk emphasized trapezoidal waveform shape and dB/dt in his book because of my explanation to him of the physics of that mechanism (Faraday Induction), and the fact that he pointed out many times that from his clinical perspective ICES-PEMF technology (which is based on that theory of operation) was vastly superior to other forms of PEMF that had been available since about 1975. (much more efficient and clinically effective).

So, it is fair to say that trapezoidal waveforms and dB/dt are in Bill Pawluk’s excellent book because of his understanding of the ICES-PEMF technology that I have been developing, and not the other way around. In recent years the other competing theories of PEMF have fallen to the wayside, since the science does not really support them as reliable and effective. As a result, many other manufacturers, including Bill’s PEMF company, have recently started using the inductive-based technology that I developed for ICES-PEMF since my work for NASA in 1996-1998.

4 Likes
,M1 how to use
#58

Thank you for the reply, it was very helpful! I have one last question: what’s your take on intensity? From what I could understand the magnetic field is less and less strong the more distance it has to travel from the point of contact…so for deep tissues it seems higher intensity is better. I use it primarily in my brain and gut…would the ICES be able to reach deep tissues (such as the hypothalamus) the same as a more powerful PEMF device?

#59

Intensity of magnetic fields does drop off very rapidly; in general it will be 1/r^3 to 1/r^4.

To reach the deepest tissues, try using our Deep Field Coils if you have a model C5 or B5, or use stacked coils if you have an M1 or A9.

Optionally, with ICES-PEMF you can use coils on opposite sides (bumpy sides away from the skin) of the area to be stimulated, which also greatly increases the magnetic field penetration distance.

4 Likes
#60

Do you have a round about depth that the two coils when stacked will reach with the A9 vs the deepest coils you talk about using the c5? Curious the depth penetration vs the two and if I should invest in a c5

#61

The driver circuit for the model M1 is identical to each channel (of four) on the model C5. And generally, when you double the number of coils that are synchronized and properly stacked, the depth for any given pulse intensity increases by about 60%. So, if you double stack the coils on a model C5 you will get two the depth as a pair of stacked coils on an M1. And if you properly stack all four pairs of coils on the C5 you will get about a 120% depth increase (a bit more than double) compared to a pair of coils stacked on the M1. This is based on direct measurements, not just theory or calculation.

4 Likes
#62

Thanks for the reply. This makes sense and I may also purchase a c5. I also have been thinking about purchasing a super pulsed laser in conjunction with using the PEmF for ligament healing. Do you see any reason why the two couldn’t be used together to treat an injury?

#63

I think you can certainly use the two together. Many clinicians regularly do so:

https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/69

#64

THIS. People are so quick to throw around terms that sound plausible, but have no precise, much less quantifiable scientific meaning. ‘Negative’ magnetic fields? What is that even?

In the academic sense, a negative field, charge, current, etc can mean the opposite direction or orientation in a given spatial reference frame, such as a cartesian or spherical coordinate system that describes 3 dimensional space. Negative can also indicate the opposite direction of movement, or perhaps the opposite phase of a wave.

First, using a term like ‘negative’ requires a defined and understood framework first to define the terms and orientation of things. You can’t just allow people to use terms such positive and negative without such a framework and have it mean anything.

In this thread, what does a positive field even mean, much less a negative one? Do these simplistic labels define a direction, orientation, flow, movement, or shape of something? Who knows. So, for me, it’s meaningless.

I see amateurs using terms like this all the time without context and an established framework of understanding to communicate anything that can be understood, rather relying on the simplistic presuppositions of the hearers’ understanding to mean that positive is good, negative is bad, etc. I assure you I can create a technically correctly labeled positive EMF that, in the right conditions can be terribly bad for you. Said positive EMF field can put you in a very negative emotional state by harming you or others. But saying that it’s a positive thing because the correct term to describe the field is ‘positive’ is nonsense.

The term du jour that people love to use now is ‘quantum’. They are using it to imply a certain level of scientifically proven rigor to otherwise unproven, unquantifiable things like emotional and spiritual states. It’s also used to inappropriately describe things such as technologies and even financial systems, without any framework of understanding what quantum means. And they do this all the while disregarding the scientific established meaning of quantum (i.e. physics) that generally in lay terms means something is fundamentally discrete and indivisible (energy state). But people have coopted the term to impute all manner of futuristic Sci-Fi qualities to all kinds of things that have no business being described with the term quantum.

So it goes. And so is the end of my linguistic rant. I rant because our language must be precise to communicate ideas clearly, especially in the realm of science. Other wise we might as well call EMF’s good and evil.

  • List item
#65

Are Dr. Pawluk’s recommended devices list on his website good recommendations or are they tied in with sponsorship. I noticed on his YouTube videos many years ago he seemed to like Earthpulse for sleep. Now he seems to be mentioning the Flexpulse for sleep purposes. He says he had a input in the device. So does that influence his opinions because of involvement with Flexpulse?
I am only asking this as I read another post on here regarding the Ben Greenfield fiasco. Which Mr Greenfield should be ashamed of. As you are one of the leading experts in PEMF.

1 Like
#66

I think in general they are good recommendations. I know Dr. Pawluk well, and he is constantly evaluating PEMF products and their clinical benefits. Just like anyone else, his opinions will change over time with new information.

Full disclosure: Dr, Pawluk has asked me to work with him to develop an even better sleep-promoting PEMF system, so his opinions may change yet again based on how well that works.

But overall, I think you are correct to be concerned because most (all?) PEMF marketers are driven by one thing: personal profit. Many will claim otherwise, but very few marketers are involved in a product for any reason other than their desire to turn a quick profit. Bill Pawluk is first and foremost a clinician, and his entry into PEMF sales was driven primarily by the need to have someone who could understand and represent PEMF products accurately with an eye toward their demonstrated clinical benefits. I know he sometimes sells systems that do not make him a lot of money. Most marketers would never do that.

3 Likes
#67

thanks for clarifying… my impression did lean on the concern of his recommendations more based on affiliate fees than that of honest effectiveness. sad, but true, you are the only voice in this space that i trust to the extent of your honest understanding of the tech.

#68

Being brutally honest, I think it is only human to have a bias toward recommending things where we have a profit incentive. Some people balance this well against the need to give good advice, contribute toward the Greater Good, etc. I think the vast majority of PEMF marketers (and marketers in general) do this very poorly. But Bill Pawluk does a pretty good job of striking this balance. I know, for instance, that he often declines to represent PEMF manufacturers that have certain questionable business practices, or systems that have questionable clinical benefit, even though they offer him significant financial incentives.

3 Likes
#69

Bob, I know you say that Gauss ratings are not really an accurate indicator of the ‘power’ of devices. But you must have some rule of thumb whereby to rate low-powered and high-powered devices. For sure, the original Bemer at .35 Gauss output would be low-powered. Full mats now come with claims of 2.2 Gauss output (like the OMI). I’ve seen these referenced as “low-power” too - compared to mats that claim output of 50 Gauss, 100 Gauss, 500 Gauss, 7,000 Gauss, 12,000 Gauss etc. (You have referenced Dr. Pawluck’s site, and he lists a number of high-Gauss devices and uses Gauss in his device comparison.)

Knowing that the posted Gauss ratings may be neither accurate nor definitive, there must be some relationship to “power.” So, can you give us a rule of thumb whereby we can differentiate between safe full-body mats and others that may do damage?

1 Like
#70

I’d like to address this in two parts: Potential harm that is (1) major versus (2) subtle of various PEMF Products:

By Potential “Major Harm”, I mean the potential of causing injury or death that anyone would immediately appreciate: heart attacks, electrical burns, severe nerve damage, major tissue lesions or tumors or the promotion of sepsis, etc.

Potential Major Harm: As far as I know, PEMF products are not generally causing major harm to people. Even the ultra-powerful ones tend to be pretty harmless (when used correctly). Otherwise, there would be major product recalls and many scientific and clinical reports on this topic, but there are not. I have read every scientific paper in every language on the topic of PEMF, including clinical case studies, and I have never heard of a case of PEMF used correctly causing this type of harm.

By Potential “Subtle Harm”, I mean those injuries not yet generally appreciated by mainstream medicine, such as the type of harm reported by people with EMI sensitivity, and things of a similar nature.

Subtle Harm is, by its nature, very difficult to detect and to prove. Just as a matter of common sense, the approach should be to remove all known types of electromagnetism from the PEMF signal that are not biologically beneficial. I have been able to show, and have written extensively about, the fact that it is possible to remove at least 99% of the power from typical PEMF pulses and still retain full biological benefit. So, what, exactly, was the remaining 99% of the power doing? Nothing beneficial, maybe something harmful. Its hard to say for sure, but that energy is definitely not needed, and confers no benefit, so it should be removed from all PEMF waveforms.

This is precisely what I have done over the past 25 years, and it is why I trademarked ICES-PEMF, so that I could have technical control over the use of a specific term (ICES) that identifies that product that uses a biophysically efficient and effective waveform.

Unfortunately, that means that the advertised “power” of a PEMF product is not a very good guide to whether it is safe or not from the standpoint of “subtle harm”.

SUMMARY:
When looking to avoid potentially harmful PEMF products, generally you do not need to worry to much about obvious, major harm, since there seems to be very little evidence of this type of danger. If your concern is subtle harm, for example if you are EMI sensitive, then you need to be much more concerned with waveform rather than power (Gauss level). So, if this is your primary concern, I would steer away from any of the high-power systems they call “ringers”, which are often advertised as using “Spark Gap Technology!!”, because spark gap technology is very very old, cheap and crude. It predates even vacuum tubes, and generates very powerful, but very inefficient and “dirty”, electro-magnetic pulses.

3 Likes
#72

would it be fair to say that if ices pemf doesn’t help an injury or isn’t an effective treatment, then pemf of any power will not make a difference to help either?